"Christopher James Huff" <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:cja### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> All methods of a string class are string methods. Return type is
> irrelevant.

I'm reasonably familiar with the POV documentation at this point, and I
don't recall ever seeing "method" or any of the other words of the OOP
lexicon used in the SDL.  Well, "object" is used of course-- but that's a
homonyn thing. POV objects and OOP objects are completely different. There
are no "methods", there is no "inheritance", talking about "classes" or
"instantiations" doesn't make any sense since these are not part of POV's
world.

The POV SDL is not an object oriented language. The rules and organizing
philosophies of object oriented languages don't apply. There is nothing
broken here that needs to be fixed. There is instead an opportunity to learn
a different way of looking at things, and maybe even gain some new insights
from the different perspective.

Organizing functions by return type is, for me, an intriguing idea. It
suggests that when I'm working on a texture or a transformation, I should
take a gander at the various functions that I could plug into the thing at
that point. That's very different from the way I think in a procedural
language or an OOP. It's more like looking over my tubes of watercolors to
get an idea of what to do next.

Would POV be better if the SDL was rewritten as an OOP?  Idunno, that could
be an interesting discussion. But I don't think this is the place for that
discussion.



--
Will Woodhull
Thornhenge, SW Oregon, USA
willl.at.thornhenge.net

Post a reply to this message